<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_18_1332220</id>
	<title>Google Makes $500M a Year On Typos</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1266500460000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>holy\_calamity writes <i>"New Scientist reports on an analysis by Harvard researchers that <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18542-typos-may-earn-google-500m-a-year.html">suggests Google rakes in half a billion dollars annually</a> from advertising that appears on typosquatting domains. They estimate that 60 per cent of typosquatting pages use Google ads, but the advertising giant declined to discuss whether it should be working with such pages."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>holy \ _calamity writes " New Scientist reports on an analysis by Harvard researchers that suggests Google rakes in half a billion dollars annually from advertising that appears on typosquatting domains .
They estimate that 60 per cent of typosquatting pages use Google ads , but the advertising giant declined to discuss whether it should be working with such pages .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>holy\_calamity writes "New Scientist reports on an analysis by Harvard researchers that suggests Google rakes in half a billion dollars annually from advertising that appears on typosquatting domains.
They estimate that 60 per cent of typosquatting pages use Google ads, but the advertising giant declined to discuss whether it should be working with such pages.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31184888</id>
	<title>ssh hacks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266510360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>One thing I've never seen discussed is how typosquaters can get your ssh passwords. I almost fell for one. Like many slashdotters I have some personal servers on adsl lines (moving IPs) and thus use the services of a dynamic DNS. I wanted to connect to user@myhomepc.dnsalias.com, one of the most common dynalic DNS, but mistyped the domain name (don't remember how exactly). I was nonetheless prompted for a password, which I stopped halfway, remembering that I had setup a public key and thus did not have to type one. It's easy to recompile ssh to log all passwords attempted. Hook it on a catchall for all subdomains and you can start gathering accesses...</htmltext>
<tokenext>One thing I 've never seen discussed is how typosquaters can get your ssh passwords .
I almost fell for one .
Like many slashdotters I have some personal servers on adsl lines ( moving IPs ) and thus use the services of a dynamic DNS .
I wanted to connect to user @ myhomepc.dnsalias.com , one of the most common dynalic DNS , but mistyped the domain name ( do n't remember how exactly ) .
I was nonetheless prompted for a password , which I stopped halfway , remembering that I had setup a public key and thus did not have to type one .
It 's easy to recompile ssh to log all passwords attempted .
Hook it on a catchall for all subdomains and you can start gathering accesses.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One thing I've never seen discussed is how typosquaters can get your ssh passwords.
I almost fell for one.
Like many slashdotters I have some personal servers on adsl lines (moving IPs) and thus use the services of a dynamic DNS.
I wanted to connect to user@myhomepc.dnsalias.com, one of the most common dynalic DNS, but mistyped the domain name (don't remember how exactly).
I was nonetheless prompted for a password, which I stopped halfway, remembering that I had setup a public key and thus did not have to type one.
It's easy to recompile ssh to log all passwords attempted.
Hook it on a catchall for all subdomains and you can start gathering accesses...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31184642</id>
	<title>Re:If only...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266509520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Holy carp, the'yd be ric!h</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Holy carp , the'yd be ric ! h</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Holy carp, the'yd be ric!h</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31183528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31183718</id>
	<title>Old news,</title>
	<author>Antony T Curtis</author>
	<datestamp>1266505320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google AdSense for Domains has more impressions than most people would believe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google AdSense for Domains has more impressions than most people would believe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google AdSense for Domains has more impressions than most people would believe.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31185502</id>
	<title>Insignificant figures</title>
	<author>0BoDy</author>
	<datestamp>1266512640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Anybody do the math here?  $500m is their GROSS income from these domains when their NET annual profit is more than 1000 time bigger.  They're not making any important profit here.  That they allow this is probably just a volume-mitigated oversight.  If I sell a Widget that breaks for a $1 profit and a company that makes a better, more durable version sells 1 billion of them for $2 more and pays $1.50 more, for them, and makes $100 Billion dollars, I'm pretty sure I'm still the evil one.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anybody do the math here ?
$ 500m is their GROSS income from these domains when their NET annual profit is more than 1000 time bigger .
They 're not making any important profit here .
That they allow this is probably just a volume-mitigated oversight .
If I sell a Widget that breaks for a $ 1 profit and a company that makes a better , more durable version sells 1 billion of them for $ 2 more and pays $ 1.50 more , for them , and makes $ 100 Billion dollars , I 'm pretty sure I 'm still the evil one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anybody do the math here?
$500m is their GROSS income from these domains when their NET annual profit is more than 1000 time bigger.
They're not making any important profit here.
That they allow this is probably just a volume-mitigated oversight.
If I sell a Widget that breaks for a $1 profit and a company that makes a better, more durable version sells 1 billion of them for $2 more and pays $1.50 more, for them, and makes $100 Billion dollars, I'm pretty sure I'm still the evil one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31183950</id>
	<title>Re:Something I wondered about Google</title>
	<author>lwsimon</author>
	<datestamp>1266506520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's not true, these days at least.  I set up my Adwords account without any upfront, and wasn't charged until after my ads began running.  In addition, I got a $100 coupon for free ads, so I was able to run extensive tests before I had to start paying for them.</p><p>Adsense, however, seems very hard to make any scratch on.  I've set it up on one of my sites, www.thankgodihadagun.com, and have gotten 100s of views, but no click-throughs.  I've "made" $.01, and won't see a payout until I hit $100.  It may be possible to make money on the domain parking stuff, but I've not tried that yet. There has to be a market segment that typos, doesn't know that they've done it, and click the first thing on the page.  That, or you could lay out the page so it looks sorta-kinda okay, and people click an ad to see if they're on the right site.</p><p>Now I have a weekend project, lol.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's not true , these days at least .
I set up my Adwords account without any upfront , and was n't charged until after my ads began running .
In addition , I got a $ 100 coupon for free ads , so I was able to run extensive tests before I had to start paying for them.Adsense , however , seems very hard to make any scratch on .
I 've set it up on one of my sites , www.thankgodihadagun.com , and have gotten 100s of views , but no click-throughs .
I 've " made " $ .01 , and wo n't see a payout until I hit $ 100 .
It may be possible to make money on the domain parking stuff , but I 've not tried that yet .
There has to be a market segment that typos , does n't know that they 've done it , and click the first thing on the page .
That , or you could lay out the page so it looks sorta-kinda okay , and people click an ad to see if they 're on the right site.Now I have a weekend project , lol .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's not true, these days at least.
I set up my Adwords account without any upfront, and wasn't charged until after my ads began running.
In addition, I got a $100 coupon for free ads, so I was able to run extensive tests before I had to start paying for them.Adsense, however, seems very hard to make any scratch on.
I've set it up on one of my sites, www.thankgodihadagun.com, and have gotten 100s of views, but no click-throughs.
I've "made" $.01, and won't see a payout until I hit $100.
It may be possible to make money on the domain parking stuff, but I've not tried that yet.
There has to be a market segment that typos, doesn't know that they've done it, and click the first thing on the page.
That, or you could lay out the page so it looks sorta-kinda okay, and people click an ad to see if they're on the right site.Now I have a weekend project, lol.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31183592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31183918</id>
	<title>As Bartcop noted...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266506340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bart's Law #2:<br>
&nbsp; Any time a person or entity makes a "mistake" that puts extra money (or power) in their pocket,<br>
&nbsp; expect them to make that "mistake" again and again and again.  That's why refineries have fires now and then,<br>
&nbsp; because a fire allows them to scream "unexpected shortage" so they can gouge us on the price of gas.<br>http://www.bartcop.com/bartslaw.htm</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bart 's Law # 2 :   Any time a person or entity makes a " mistake " that puts extra money ( or power ) in their pocket ,   expect them to make that " mistake " again and again and again .
That 's why refineries have fires now and then ,   because a fire allows them to scream " unexpected shortage " so they can gouge us on the price of gas.http : //www.bartcop.com/bartslaw.htm</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bart's Law #2:
  Any time a person or entity makes a "mistake" that puts extra money (or power) in their pocket,
  expect them to make that "mistake" again and again and again.
That's why refineries have fires now and then,
  because a fire allows them to scream "unexpected shortage" so they can gouge us on the price of gas.http://www.bartcop.com/bartslaw.htm</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31183480</id>
	<title>Smart people.</title>
	<author>SharpFang</author>
	<datestamp>1266504300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Someone on Google saw some new Internet service and said "I wish I had $0.01 for each typo the teens make."<br>Someone else said "You know, that's a really, really good idea. Let's do it."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone on Google saw some new Internet service and said " I wish I had $ 0.01 for each typo the teens make .
" Someone else said " You know , that 's a really , really good idea .
Let 's do it .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone on Google saw some new Internet service and said "I wish I had $0.01 for each typo the teens make.
"Someone else said "You know, that's a really, really good idea.
Let's do it.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31183708</id>
	<title>Re:Something I wondered about Google</title>
	<author>Kotoku</author>
	<datestamp>1266505320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, that would mean they were making Google money.

They get the advertiser's money. They hold it (accruing interest) and do not release it all until the recipients of the funds have reached preset limits for payment.

Google is paying out very tiny amounts of money in these cases in varying time frames all the while collecting interest on the funds. A second added benefit is exposure and free advertising of their adwords service.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , that would mean they were making Google money .
They get the advertiser 's money .
They hold it ( accruing interest ) and do not release it all until the recipients of the funds have reached preset limits for payment .
Google is paying out very tiny amounts of money in these cases in varying time frames all the while collecting interest on the funds .
A second added benefit is exposure and free advertising of their adwords service .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, that would mean they were making Google money.
They get the advertiser's money.
They hold it (accruing interest) and do not release it all until the recipients of the funds have reached preset limits for payment.
Google is paying out very tiny amounts of money in these cases in varying time frames all the while collecting interest on the funds.
A second added benefit is exposure and free advertising of their adwords service.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31183592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31185162</id>
	<title>Re:What's the intimation here?</title>
	<author>shaggyhiggins</author>
	<datestamp>1266511440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Agreed. Let's compare to the 'real' (physical) world. If you were walking in a mall and accidentally went into the wrong store space, but instead of being a store its a room full of billboards and ad posters with some benches to sit on, would you write a letter to the mall management saying you should not allow the person who leases that space to put advertisements in that empty room over there because you meant to go into that store beside it? NO!! Every space in life is considered an Ad space, why would that be different on the internet where advertisement is the dominant source of revenues ??</htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
Let 's compare to the 'real ' ( physical ) world .
If you were walking in a mall and accidentally went into the wrong store space , but instead of being a store its a room full of billboards and ad posters with some benches to sit on , would you write a letter to the mall management saying you should not allow the person who leases that space to put advertisements in that empty room over there because you meant to go into that store beside it ?
NO ! ! Every space in life is considered an Ad space , why would that be different on the internet where advertisement is the dominant source of revenues ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
Let's compare to the 'real' (physical) world.
If you were walking in a mall and accidentally went into the wrong store space, but instead of being a store its a room full of billboards and ad posters with some benches to sit on, would you write a letter to the mall management saying you should not allow the person who leases that space to put advertisements in that empty room over there because you meant to go into that store beside it?
NO!! Every space in life is considered an Ad space, why would that be different on the internet where advertisement is the dominant source of revenues ?
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31183748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31186122</id>
	<title>Re:ssh hacks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266515100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wait, what?! So you and another nerd (perhaps me) have an ssh service running.  My dyndns username is a one letter from yours. You fat finger it, ignore the ssh key warning, and type in your username? You really think thats some hack? Err, time to take off the tin foil hat.</p><p>I doubt there's an army of dyndns typo domains just to get your password. Heck, how could you implement it?  Lets say your domain is darguard.dyndns.org and the typo domain is dargard. How do they know it was dargaurd that visited and not dargarf or darfard?  Typos are two way street.  Regardless, this is why we have key change warnings.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait , what ? !
So you and another nerd ( perhaps me ) have an ssh service running .
My dyndns username is a one letter from yours .
You fat finger it , ignore the ssh key warning , and type in your username ?
You really think thats some hack ?
Err , time to take off the tin foil hat.I doubt there 's an army of dyndns typo domains just to get your password .
Heck , how could you implement it ?
Lets say your domain is darguard.dyndns.org and the typo domain is dargard .
How do they know it was dargaurd that visited and not dargarf or darfard ?
Typos are two way street .
Regardless , this is why we have key change warnings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait, what?!
So you and another nerd (perhaps me) have an ssh service running.
My dyndns username is a one letter from yours.
You fat finger it, ignore the ssh key warning, and type in your username?
You really think thats some hack?
Err, time to take off the tin foil hat.I doubt there's an army of dyndns typo domains just to get your password.
Heck, how could you implement it?
Lets say your domain is darguard.dyndns.org and the typo domain is dargard.
How do they know it was dargaurd that visited and not dargarf or darfard?
Typos are two way street.
Regardless, this is why we have key change warnings.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31184888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31184416</id>
	<title>Re:Smart people.</title>
	<author>Mantis8</author>
	<datestamp>1266508560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I used to be a search engine results evaluator for a company that does contract work for google.  (Yes, google does have humans rate sites besides its complex, ever-changing, and mysterious algorithm).  Sites like these are rated as off-topic and get flagged as a spam site as well, which would drop their rankings.  Thus, they would get fewer traffic hits, and google would make less money off of them.  So I think its just a temporary gig for the spam site - they try to make as much money as they can before the inevitable demotion in the rankings. <br> <br>
Google should thus do a better job of screening the sites in the first place and prevent them from even getting into the system.  In the long run, this is what actually pays off the most for the almighty goog because this would make for a better search experience for their customers, which is why google is the number 1 search engine in the world and how they make so much money in the first place.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to be a search engine results evaluator for a company that does contract work for google .
( Yes , google does have humans rate sites besides its complex , ever-changing , and mysterious algorithm ) .
Sites like these are rated as off-topic and get flagged as a spam site as well , which would drop their rankings .
Thus , they would get fewer traffic hits , and google would make less money off of them .
So I think its just a temporary gig for the spam site - they try to make as much money as they can before the inevitable demotion in the rankings .
Google should thus do a better job of screening the sites in the first place and prevent them from even getting into the system .
In the long run , this is what actually pays off the most for the almighty goog because this would make for a better search experience for their customers , which is why google is the number 1 search engine in the world and how they make so much money in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used to be a search engine results evaluator for a company that does contract work for google.
(Yes, google does have humans rate sites besides its complex, ever-changing, and mysterious algorithm).
Sites like these are rated as off-topic and get flagged as a spam site as well, which would drop their rankings.
Thus, they would get fewer traffic hits, and google would make less money off of them.
So I think its just a temporary gig for the spam site - they try to make as much money as they can before the inevitable demotion in the rankings.
Google should thus do a better job of screening the sites in the first place and prevent them from even getting into the system.
In the long run, this is what actually pays off the most for the almighty goog because this would make for a better search experience for their customers, which is why google is the number 1 search engine in the world and how they make so much money in the first place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31183480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31183720</id>
	<title>Typosquatting is Evil</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266505320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Typosquatting is evil but, $500 million per year is delicious. How can we increase revenues? Ooh, let's run our own global DNS system do our own typo squatting and cut out the middle man!</p><p>Genious! Eric, peel me a grape.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Typosquatting is evil but , $ 500 million per year is delicious .
How can we increase revenues ?
Ooh , let 's run our own global DNS system do our own typo squatting and cut out the middle man ! Genious !
Eric , peel me a grape .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Typosquatting is evil but, $500 million per year is delicious.
How can we increase revenues?
Ooh, let's run our own global DNS system do our own typo squatting and cut out the middle man!Genious!
Eric, peel me a grape.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31187204</id>
	<title>MARE</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266519780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">future at all distribution make Users With Large progress. Any no matter how L:ove of two is Join in. It can be superior to slow,</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>future at all distribution make Users With Large progress .
Any no matter how L : ove of two is Join in .
It can be superior to slow , [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>future at all distribution make Users With Large progress.
Any no matter how L:ove of two is Join in.
It can be superior to slow, [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31185096</id>
	<title>estimate reference &amp; methodology</title>
	<author>bedelman</author>
	<datestamp>1266511260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not sure if you saw <a href="http://www.benedelman.org/typosquatting/pop.html" title="benedelman.org">the portion of our article</a> [benedelman.org] that develops the estimate and presents the methodology for the estimate.  If not, that might be of interest.</p><p>As you say, it's hard to make a precise estimate.  There are important pieces of data uniquely within Google's custody, and Google isn't talking.  But in these circumstances, I do feel it's appropriate to make a good-faith estimate.  If you think our numbers are in error, feel free to identify which specific numbers you think are off, in which direction, and for what reason.  But realize that for every number you think is too high, there is likely to be another that might be too low.  (We discuss some of these complications in the page linked above.)  I don't think it's clear from first principles that our estimate is biased in one way or the other.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure if you saw the portion of our article [ benedelman.org ] that develops the estimate and presents the methodology for the estimate .
If not , that might be of interest.As you say , it 's hard to make a precise estimate .
There are important pieces of data uniquely within Google 's custody , and Google is n't talking .
But in these circumstances , I do feel it 's appropriate to make a good-faith estimate .
If you think our numbers are in error , feel free to identify which specific numbers you think are off , in which direction , and for what reason .
But realize that for every number you think is too high , there is likely to be another that might be too low .
( We discuss some of these complications in the page linked above .
) I do n't think it 's clear from first principles that our estimate is biased in one way or the other .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure if you saw the portion of our article [benedelman.org] that develops the estimate and presents the methodology for the estimate.
If not, that might be of interest.As you say, it's hard to make a precise estimate.
There are important pieces of data uniquely within Google's custody, and Google isn't talking.
But in these circumstances, I do feel it's appropriate to make a good-faith estimate.
If you think our numbers are in error, feel free to identify which specific numbers you think are off, in which direction, and for what reason.
But realize that for every number you think is too high, there is likely to be another that might be too low.
(We discuss some of these complications in the page linked above.
)  I don't think it's clear from first principles that our estimate is biased in one way or the other.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31183686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31183576</id>
	<title>Frist</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266504720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>They won't maek a penny out of me!</htmltext>
<tokenext>They wo n't maek a penny out of me !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They won't maek a penny out of me!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31188128</id>
	<title>Yeah, and ...</title>
	<author>PhxBlue</author>
	<datestamp>1266522780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... states make millions of dollars each year on people who can't do math, i.e., lotteries. Not sure what the point of this article is; are we supposed to hate Google for making money off dumb people?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... states make millions of dollars each year on people who ca n't do math , i.e. , lotteries .
Not sure what the point of this article is ; are we supposed to hate Google for making money off dumb people ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... states make millions of dollars each year on people who can't do math, i.e., lotteries.
Not sure what the point of this article is; are we supposed to hate Google for making money off dumb people?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31183880</id>
	<title>Good grief</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266506280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every thirteen year old with a cell phone will be a millionaire by year's end...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every thirteen year old with a cell phone will be a millionaire by year 's end.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every thirteen year old with a cell phone will be a millionaire by year's end...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31184702</id>
	<title>Re:Fantasy math</title>
	<author>Mashdar</author>
	<datestamp>1266509760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What if it was an ad for the site you actually wanted?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>What if it was an ad for the site you actually wanted ?
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if it was an ad for the site you actually wanted?
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31183686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31186144</id>
	<title>Re:Hypocritical Policies</title>
	<author>megamerican</author>
	<datestamp>1266515160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To quote P.T. Barnum: "There's a fucker born every minute."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>To quote P.T .
Barnum : " There 's a fucker born every minute .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To quote P.T.
Barnum: "There's a fucker born every minute.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31183542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31185472</id>
	<title>What about the registrar?</title>
	<author>schlick</author>
	<datestamp>1266512520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The guy who did the "study" is a douche.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Moore and Edelman started by using common spelling mistakes to create a list of possible typo domains for the 3264 most popular<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.com websites, as determined by Alexa.com rankings. They estimate that each of the 3264 top sites is targeted by around 280 typo domains.</p><p>They then used software to crawl 285,000 of these 900,000-odd sites to determine what revenue the typo domains might be generating.</p></div><p>Why didn't he publish the registrars that provide typo domains?  There isn't any question that they profit directly from those typosquaters.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The guy who did the " study " is a douche.Moore and Edelman started by using common spelling mistakes to create a list of possible typo domains for the 3264 most popular .com websites , as determined by Alexa.com rankings .
They estimate that each of the 3264 top sites is targeted by around 280 typo domains.They then used software to crawl 285,000 of these 900,000-odd sites to determine what revenue the typo domains might be generating.Why did n't he publish the registrars that provide typo domains ?
There is n't any question that they profit directly from those typosquaters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The guy who did the "study" is a douche.Moore and Edelman started by using common spelling mistakes to create a list of possible typo domains for the 3264 most popular .com websites, as determined by Alexa.com rankings.
They estimate that each of the 3264 top sites is targeted by around 280 typo domains.They then used software to crawl 285,000 of these 900,000-odd sites to determine what revenue the typo domains might be generating.Why didn't he publish the registrars that provide typo domains?
There isn't any question that they profit directly from those typosquaters.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31184970</id>
	<title>Re:If only...</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1266510780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And a dime for every dupe...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And a dime for every dupe.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And a dime for every dupe...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31183528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31188418</id>
	<title>Re:ssh hacks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266523620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does a SSH client transmit your actual typed password to the remote server, or does it use a challenge-response system to hash the password based on a challenge received from the server?</p><p>(Even if it's the latter, you'd still be susceptible to a man-in-the-middle attack, but at least you wouldn't be giving away your actual password.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does a SSH client transmit your actual typed password to the remote server , or does it use a challenge-response system to hash the password based on a challenge received from the server ?
( Even if it 's the latter , you 'd still be susceptible to a man-in-the-middle attack , but at least you would n't be giving away your actual password .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does a SSH client transmit your actual typed password to the remote server, or does it use a challenge-response system to hash the password based on a challenge received from the server?
(Even if it's the latter, you'd still be susceptible to a man-in-the-middle attack, but at least you wouldn't be giving away your actual password.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31184888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31187272</id>
	<title>Some people make mistakes, other people profit</title>
	<author>pedantic bore</author>
	<datestamp>1266520020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... a classic and timeless business strategy. </p><p> In this case the mistakes are typos, and the profit goes to Google (and others), but the idea isn't all that novel. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... a classic and timeless business strategy .
In this case the mistakes are typos , and the profit goes to Google ( and others ) , but the idea is n't all that novel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... a classic and timeless business strategy.
In this case the mistakes are typos, and the profit goes to Google (and others), but the idea isn't all that novel. </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31183672</id>
	<title>Not just typos</title>
	<author>characterZer0</author>
	<datestamp>1266505080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Once or twice in my life I have landed at a domain squatter's site due to a typo. Hundreds or thousands of times I have landed there due to links to sites that used to be something but are now run by the squatters.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Once or twice in my life I have landed at a domain squatter 's site due to a typo .
Hundreds or thousands of times I have landed there due to links to sites that used to be something but are now run by the squatters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once or twice in my life I have landed at a domain squatter's site due to a typo.
Hundreds or thousands of times I have landed there due to links to sites that used to be something but are now run by the squatters.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31190658</id>
	<title>yu0 fail i7..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266486540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">chron1c abuse cof</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>chron1c abuse cof [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>chron1c abuse cof [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31184412</id>
	<title>Ctrl-D</title>
	<author>thistheater</author>
	<datestamp>1266508560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Headline should read:

Single Keystroke Can Cut Google's Profits By $500m a Year</htmltext>
<tokenext>Headline should read : Single Keystroke Can Cut Google 's Profits By $ 500m a Year</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Headline should read:

Single Keystroke Can Cut Google's Profits By $500m a Year</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31183868</id>
	<title>Devil's advocate</title>
	<author>Ceriel Nosforit</author>
	<datestamp>1266506220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Well if google does it, it's OK."</p><p>Namespace is a natural resource. A renewable one?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Well if google does it , it 's OK. " Namespace is a natural resource .
A renewable one ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Well if google does it, it's OK."Namespace is a natural resource.
A renewable one?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31183844</id>
	<title>News at 11</title>
	<author>token0</author>
	<datestamp>1266506100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google makes money on ads. Typosquatting pages use ads (mostly Google ads).
I can sense the evil.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google makes money on ads .
Typosquatting pages use ads ( mostly Google ads ) .
I can sense the evil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google makes money on ads.
Typosquatting pages use ads (mostly Google ads).
I can sense the evil.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31185038</id>
	<title>Good for them!</title>
	<author>Aphoxema</author>
	<datestamp>1266511080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At least they're not letting all those typos go to waste!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At least they 're not letting all those typos go to waste !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least they're not letting all those typos go to waste!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31183506</id>
	<title>totally</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266504360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>u lost the game</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>u lost the game</tokentext>
<sentencetext>u lost the game</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31183748</id>
	<title>What's the intimation here?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266505440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hope they're not suggesting it's unethical of Google to work with these typo-squatters, because it simply isn't. Now, if the typo-squatters were trying to trick people into thinking they'd reached where they were attempting to get, that would be unethical.</p><p>It's becoming a moot point, anyway... Most people I know type the <i>web address</i> into the Google search box, then click on the link that appears.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope they 're not suggesting it 's unethical of Google to work with these typo-squatters , because it simply is n't .
Now , if the typo-squatters were trying to trick people into thinking they 'd reached where they were attempting to get , that would be unethical.It 's becoming a moot point , anyway... Most people I know type the web address into the Google search box , then click on the link that appears .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope they're not suggesting it's unethical of Google to work with these typo-squatters, because it simply isn't.
Now, if the typo-squatters were trying to trick people into thinking they'd reached where they were attempting to get, that would be unethical.It's becoming a moot point, anyway... Most people I know type the web address into the Google search box, then click on the link that appears.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31183592</id>
	<title>Something I wondered about Google</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266504720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When you advertise with Google, they take an upfront fee. They want at least $50. Now they have the cash. They don't pay the website that's hosting the ads unless someone clicks on the ad AND check isn't written until the hoster's account hits $100. In the meantime, Google has the cash paid by the advertiser.</p><p>If any thing, the typo domain squatters are <i>costing</i> Google money or probably more accurate, making them not as profitable since they are planning to pay out the advertising share -eventually - but the money isn't in their bank. If that made any sense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When you advertise with Google , they take an upfront fee .
They want at least $ 50 .
Now they have the cash .
They do n't pay the website that 's hosting the ads unless someone clicks on the ad AND check is n't written until the hoster 's account hits $ 100 .
In the meantime , Google has the cash paid by the advertiser.If any thing , the typo domain squatters are costing Google money or probably more accurate , making them not as profitable since they are planning to pay out the advertising share -eventually - but the money is n't in their bank .
If that made any sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you advertise with Google, they take an upfront fee.
They want at least $50.
Now they have the cash.
They don't pay the website that's hosting the ads unless someone clicks on the ad AND check isn't written until the hoster's account hits $100.
In the meantime, Google has the cash paid by the advertiser.If any thing, the typo domain squatters are costing Google money or probably more accurate, making them not as profitable since they are planning to pay out the advertising share -eventually - but the money isn't in their bank.
If that made any sense.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31183866</id>
	<title>Better them than other ad networks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266506220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Considering Google's ad network is the least obtrusive, not likely to try to infect your computer, doesn't prevent you from hitting the "back" button, etc etc.

</p><p>Having THEM make money on that type of fraud probably does less damage than Doubleclick, or whomever else would be doing it.

</p><p>As long as the domains are fully paid for and not typosquatting domain-tasting operations I have no problem with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Considering Google 's ad network is the least obtrusive , not likely to try to infect your computer , does n't prevent you from hitting the " back " button , etc etc .
Having THEM make money on that type of fraud probably does less damage than Doubleclick , or whomever else would be doing it .
As long as the domains are fully paid for and not typosquatting domain-tasting operations I have no problem with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Considering Google's ad network is the least obtrusive, not likely to try to infect your computer, doesn't prevent you from hitting the "back" button, etc etc.
Having THEM make money on that type of fraud probably does less damage than Doubleclick, or whomever else would be doing it.
As long as the domains are fully paid for and not typosquatting domain-tasting operations I have no problem with it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31183528</id>
	<title>If only...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266504480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Slashdot got a nickel for every typo...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Slashdot got a nickel for every typo.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slashdot got a nickel for every typo...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31184522</id>
	<title>No different than a billboard</title>
	<author>mayko</author>
	<datestamp>1266509040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Legit squatting sites are no different than a billboard you see after you make a wrong turn while driving. <br> <br>
Like others have said, as long as they aren't a phishing site or trying to trick you into believing you are where you are not, then it sounds like there is no foul.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Legit squatting sites are no different than a billboard you see after you make a wrong turn while driving .
Like others have said , as long as they are n't a phishing site or trying to trick you into believing you are where you are not , then it sounds like there is no foul .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Legit squatting sites are no different than a billboard you see after you make a wrong turn while driving.
Like others have said, as long as they aren't a phishing site or trying to trick you into believing you are where you are not, then it sounds like there is no foul.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31186634</id>
	<title>34\% "bottom feeder" sites in AdWords.</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1266517200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Our own data, at <a href="http://www.sitetruth.net/" title="sitetruth.net">SiteTruth</a> [sitetruth.net], indicates that about 34\% of Google Content Network advertisers, by domain name, are "bottom feeder" sites which we can't associate with a real-world business.  This is disappointing, but not surprising.  When you see a Google ad, it's not usually from a Fortune 1000 company, after all.
</p><p>
Our data comes from our <a href="http://www.sitetruth.com/downloads/adrater.html" title="sitetruth.com">AdRater plug-in</a> [sitetruth.com], which rates the advertiser behind each Google ad as it appears on the user's web page.  If someone goes to an ad-heavy typosquatting site, we'll see the domains advertised there.  (We don't see the typosquatting domain, though; we don't monitor what pages the user views, just the ad domains. We're interested in advertiser behavior, not use behavior.)
We collect the domain names of the advertisers, so we have a sizable fraction of Google's customer list, and this is hard data.  We're not extrapolating.
</p><p>
(Collecting Google's customer list is a "long tail" kind of thing. The first 25,000 Google advertisers were seen in the first two months; the next 25,000 showed up over about four months. We'll never see them all, but we've probably seen most of them by now.  Google probably has somewhere between 50,000 and 100,000 active advertisers, by domain name.)
</p><p>
The numbers indicate that a significant portion of Google's revenue comes from those "bottom feeders".  That's why Google can't be very tough on "web spam".  They have Matt Cutts claiming that Google tries to stop web spam, but, realistically, they don't try very hard.  They can't. It's essential to their business model.
</p><p>
<a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=craigslist+auto+posting+tool" title="google.com">Search Google for "craigslist auto posting tool".</a> [google.com]  Not only are there paid ads for software to put ads on Craiglist using phony accounts, <a href="http://www.google.com/aclk?sa=l&amp;ai=CmgRXs3N9S7PdBoqytQPt7fDaBoX9jI8Bldvdmw7unPDmEwgAEAEgtlQoAlD2\_pQRYMn2-IbIo6AZoAHD4ZztA8gBAaoEGU\_Q4CiWkSrpu5HgJxRQZ3Vkya1GMSsnWPGABZBO&amp;sig=AGiWqtwkLcypgeQAOPgCwSmL5j72NHMm8Q&amp;q=http://troopal.com/index.php\%3Fadwordskw\%3Dcraigslist\%2520auto\%2520posting\%2520tool" title="google.com">some of them use Google Checkout</a> [google.com], so Google gets a cut of what's basically a fraud scheme. ("Automatic CAPTCHA bypass available with integrated Image-to-Text support!") Google's advertiser validation standards are very low.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Our own data , at SiteTruth [ sitetruth.net ] , indicates that about 34 \ % of Google Content Network advertisers , by domain name , are " bottom feeder " sites which we ca n't associate with a real-world business .
This is disappointing , but not surprising .
When you see a Google ad , it 's not usually from a Fortune 1000 company , after all .
Our data comes from our AdRater plug-in [ sitetruth.com ] , which rates the advertiser behind each Google ad as it appears on the user 's web page .
If someone goes to an ad-heavy typosquatting site , we 'll see the domains advertised there .
( We do n't see the typosquatting domain , though ; we do n't monitor what pages the user views , just the ad domains .
We 're interested in advertiser behavior , not use behavior .
) We collect the domain names of the advertisers , so we have a sizable fraction of Google 's customer list , and this is hard data .
We 're not extrapolating .
( Collecting Google 's customer list is a " long tail " kind of thing .
The first 25,000 Google advertisers were seen in the first two months ; the next 25,000 showed up over about four months .
We 'll never see them all , but we 've probably seen most of them by now .
Google probably has somewhere between 50,000 and 100,000 active advertisers , by domain name .
) The numbers indicate that a significant portion of Google 's revenue comes from those " bottom feeders " .
That 's why Google ca n't be very tough on " web spam " .
They have Matt Cutts claiming that Google tries to stop web spam , but , realistically , they do n't try very hard .
They ca n't .
It 's essential to their business model .
Search Google for " craigslist auto posting tool " .
[ google.com ] Not only are there paid ads for software to put ads on Craiglist using phony accounts , some of them use Google Checkout [ google.com ] , so Google gets a cut of what 's basically a fraud scheme .
( " Automatic CAPTCHA bypass available with integrated Image-to-Text support !
" ) Google 's advertiser validation standards are very low .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Our own data, at SiteTruth [sitetruth.net], indicates that about 34\% of Google Content Network advertisers, by domain name, are "bottom feeder" sites which we can't associate with a real-world business.
This is disappointing, but not surprising.
When you see a Google ad, it's not usually from a Fortune 1000 company, after all.
Our data comes from our AdRater plug-in [sitetruth.com], which rates the advertiser behind each Google ad as it appears on the user's web page.
If someone goes to an ad-heavy typosquatting site, we'll see the domains advertised there.
(We don't see the typosquatting domain, though; we don't monitor what pages the user views, just the ad domains.
We're interested in advertiser behavior, not use behavior.
)
We collect the domain names of the advertisers, so we have a sizable fraction of Google's customer list, and this is hard data.
We're not extrapolating.
(Collecting Google's customer list is a "long tail" kind of thing.
The first 25,000 Google advertisers were seen in the first two months; the next 25,000 showed up over about four months.
We'll never see them all, but we've probably seen most of them by now.
Google probably has somewhere between 50,000 and 100,000 active advertisers, by domain name.
)

The numbers indicate that a significant portion of Google's revenue comes from those "bottom feeders".
That's why Google can't be very tough on "web spam".
They have Matt Cutts claiming that Google tries to stop web spam, but, realistically, they don't try very hard.
They can't.
It's essential to their business model.
Search Google for "craigslist auto posting tool".
[google.com]  Not only are there paid ads for software to put ads on Craiglist using phony accounts, some of them use Google Checkout [google.com], so Google gets a cut of what's basically a fraud scheme.
("Automatic CAPTCHA bypass available with integrated Image-to-Text support!
") Google's advertiser validation standards are very low.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31191350</id>
	<title>Re:Not just typos</title>
	<author>petermgreen</author>
	<datestamp>1266488760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What makes me despair is that ads on these sites actually work. My first thought at landing on such a site is along the lines of wishing the operators would fuck off and die.</p><p>There must be a lot of retards out there I guess.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What makes me despair is that ads on these sites actually work .
My first thought at landing on such a site is along the lines of wishing the operators would fuck off and die.There must be a lot of retards out there I guess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What makes me despair is that ads on these sites actually work.
My first thought at landing on such a site is along the lines of wishing the operators would fuck off and die.There must be a lot of retards out there I guess.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31183672</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31185152</id>
	<title>If Google pulls out</title>
	<author>HikingStick</author>
	<datestamp>1266511380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If Googles refuses its advertising services to those domain typo ad park owners, it will only affect Googls's bottom line.  The site owners will get some other ad service to serve up ads, and they will keep making money.  The only way something like that will work is is every major online advertising service agrees not to serve ads to blacklisted ad sites (blad sites).  If the typo squatters had to put in more effort to secure ads from multiple sources, it would make the sites less profitable.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If Googles refuses its advertising services to those domain typo ad park owners , it will only affect Googls 's bottom line .
The site owners will get some other ad service to serve up ads , and they will keep making money .
The only way something like that will work is is every major online advertising service agrees not to serve ads to blacklisted ad sites ( blad sites ) .
If the typo squatters had to put in more effort to secure ads from multiple sources , it would make the sites less profitable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Googles refuses its advertising services to those domain typo ad park owners, it will only affect Googls's bottom line.
The site owners will get some other ad service to serve up ads, and they will keep making money.
The only way something like that will work is is every major online advertising service agrees not to serve ads to blacklisted ad sites (blad sites).
If the typo squatters had to put in more effort to secure ads from multiple sources, it would make the sites less profitable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31187292</id>
	<title>Re:Frist</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266520140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;\_&gt; you spelled "make" wrong<nobr> <wbr></nobr>......</p><p>you can pay me now</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; \ _ &gt; you spelled " make " wrong ......you can pay me now</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;\_&gt; you spelled "make" wrong ......you can pay me now</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31183576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31185782</id>
	<title>Re:What's the intimation here?</title>
	<author>Macka</author>
	<datestamp>1266513660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> It's becoming a moot point, anyway... Most people I know type the web address into the Google search box, then click on the link that appears</p></div><p>Yep, my wife does that even though I've tried explaining a number of times that typing the name of the site in the URL box on (most) modern browsers will likely show her the site she wants.  She has her way of doing it and it works for her and she won't change.  In light of this I think Google's idea to combine URL and search into just the one box was a very smart move.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's becoming a moot point , anyway... Most people I know type the web address into the Google search box , then click on the link that appearsYep , my wife does that even though I 've tried explaining a number of times that typing the name of the site in the URL box on ( most ) modern browsers will likely show her the site she wants .
She has her way of doing it and it works for her and she wo n't change .
In light of this I think Google 's idea to combine URL and search into just the one box was a very smart move .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> It's becoming a moot point, anyway... Most people I know type the web address into the Google search box, then click on the link that appearsYep, my wife does that even though I've tried explaining a number of times that typing the name of the site in the URL box on (most) modern browsers will likely show her the site she wants.
She has her way of doing it and it works for her and she won't change.
In light of this I think Google's idea to combine URL and search into just the one box was a very smart move.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31183748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31183686</id>
	<title>Fantasy math</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266505140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>No logical leaps here:<br> <br>
<b> <i>If</i> </b> the company earns <i>as much per visitor</i> from ads on typo sites as it <b> <i>reportedly</i></b>  does from ads <i>alongside search results</i>, it <b> <i>could potentially</i></b>  earn $497 million a year in revenue from typo domains, they conclude.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No logical leaps here : If the company earns as much per visitor from ads on typo sites as it reportedly does from ads alongside search results , it could potentially earn $ 497 million a year in revenue from typo domains , they conclude .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No logical leaps here: 
 If  the company earns as much per visitor from ads on typo sites as it  reportedly  does from ads alongside search results, it  could potentially  earn $497 million a year in revenue from typo domains, they conclude.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31185042</id>
	<title>Google Adwords - a scam i can't live without</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266511080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I spend about $5,000 per day on adwords for my legitimate business.  fair enough.  we couldnt live without it and it makes money for us.</p><p>HOWEVER</p><p>probably about 1/3 of that is blatantly stolen by google.  how?</p><p>their copy says that they display our ads on RELEVANT sites.  it says "relevant."</p><p>nevertheless, at leat 1/3 of our ads are shown on sites that couldn't by the wildest definition of the term 'relevant' be considered in any way shape or form to be 'relevant.'  i mean, we do,err, engineering-like stuff and our ads go on turkish-language hip-hop sites.</p><p>adwords' functionality for us to explicitly flag domains that we don't want is a scam since they artificially limit you to some 1000 domains or whatever it is.  we compiled a list of 20,000 blatantly inappropriate domains in the first few months.</p><p>so, i'm under no illusions - yes, google does help us, but they are also ruthless bastards.  if only we were big enough to sue them, we would, as their use of the word 'relevant' there is nothing short of outright fraud.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I spend about $ 5,000 per day on adwords for my legitimate business .
fair enough .
we couldnt live without it and it makes money for us.HOWEVERprobably about 1/3 of that is blatantly stolen by google .
how ? their copy says that they display our ads on RELEVANT sites .
it says " relevant .
" nevertheless , at leat 1/3 of our ads are shown on sites that could n't by the wildest definition of the term 'relevant ' be considered in any way shape or form to be 'relevant .
' i mean , we do,err , engineering-like stuff and our ads go on turkish-language hip-hop sites.adwords ' functionality for us to explicitly flag domains that we do n't want is a scam since they artificially limit you to some 1000 domains or whatever it is .
we compiled a list of 20,000 blatantly inappropriate domains in the first few months.so , i 'm under no illusions - yes , google does help us , but they are also ruthless bastards .
if only we were big enough to sue them , we would , as their use of the word 'relevant ' there is nothing short of outright fraud .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I spend about $5,000 per day on adwords for my legitimate business.
fair enough.
we couldnt live without it and it makes money for us.HOWEVERprobably about 1/3 of that is blatantly stolen by google.
how?their copy says that they display our ads on RELEVANT sites.
it says "relevant.
"nevertheless, at leat 1/3 of our ads are shown on sites that couldn't by the wildest definition of the term 'relevant' be considered in any way shape or form to be 'relevant.
'  i mean, we do,err, engineering-like stuff and our ads go on turkish-language hip-hop sites.adwords' functionality for us to explicitly flag domains that we don't want is a scam since they artificially limit you to some 1000 domains or whatever it is.
we compiled a list of 20,000 blatantly inappropriate domains in the first few months.so, i'm under no illusions - yes, google does help us, but they are also ruthless bastards.
if only we were big enough to sue them, we would, as their use of the word 'relevant' there is nothing short of outright fraud.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31183742</id>
	<title>Why shouldn't they?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266505440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>As long as it is not leading the user to some fishy site, I think it is perfectly legit to work with these kind of sites especially when it involves $500 mil</htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as it is not leading the user to some fishy site , I think it is perfectly legit to work with these kind of sites especially when it involves $ 500 mil</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As long as it is not leading the user to some fishy site, I think it is perfectly legit to work with these kind of sites especially when it involves $500 mil</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31183542</id>
	<title>Hypocritical Policies</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266504600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm sure that Google requires as a condition of their AdSense program, your site contains at least some content.  They manually review sites before you get accepted into the AdSense program.<br> <br>

Unless of course you use their <a href="http://www.google.com/domainpark/" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">Domain Parking</a> [google.com] option.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure that Google requires as a condition of their AdSense program , your site contains at least some content .
They manually review sites before you get accepted into the AdSense program .
Unless of course you use their Domain Parking [ google.com ] option .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure that Google requires as a condition of their AdSense program, your site contains at least some content.
They manually review sites before you get accepted into the AdSense program.
Unless of course you use their Domain Parking [google.com] option.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31184086</id>
	<title>Re:If only...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266507300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>
Slashdot got a nickel for every typo...
</i> <br>
<br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...Taco could easily have enough money to buy his <a href="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/33/46215623\_9b501c3c29.jpg" title="flickr.com" rel="nofollow">PT Cruiser</a> [flickr.com] back?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Slashdot got a nickel for every typo.. . ...Taco could easily have enough money to buy his PT Cruiser [ flickr.com ] back ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Slashdot got a nickel for every typo...
 
 ...Taco could easily have enough money to buy his PT Cruiser [flickr.com] back?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31183528</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_1332220_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31184416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31183480
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_1332220_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31191350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31183672
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_1332220_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31184970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31183528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_1332220_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31184702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31183686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_1332220_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31186122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31184888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_1332220_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31183708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31183592
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_1332220_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31187292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31183576
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_1332220_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31184642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31183528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_1332220_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31183950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31183592
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_1332220_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31185782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31183748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_1332220_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31185162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31183748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_1332220_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31184086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31183528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_1332220_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31188418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31184888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_1332220_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31185096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31183686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_1332220_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31186144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31183542
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_1332220.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31183918
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_1332220.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31183742
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_1332220.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31183542
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31186144
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_1332220.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31183592
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31183708
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31183950
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_1332220.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31183866
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_1332220.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31183528
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31184642
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31184086
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31184970
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_1332220.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31183686
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31185096
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31184702
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_1332220.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31183748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31185782
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31185162
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_1332220.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31183576
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31187292
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_1332220.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31184888
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31188418
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31186122
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_1332220.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31183480
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31184416
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_1332220.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31183720
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_1332220.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31183672
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1332220.31191350
</commentlist>
</conversation>
